The Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners violated the state’s open meetings law when it held an unscheduled discussion about runway safety last month, according to a decision issued Monday by District Attorney Steve Cooley.

The commission faces no formal discipline and was asked by Cooley to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act, which requires that time be set aside for public testimony during meetings.

“After careful review of the materials and the applicable law, we conclude that the process followed by the Board of Airport Commissioners at its meeting on Dec. 17, 2007, did not meet the procedural requirements of the Brown Act,” Cooley wrote in a letter to the commission.

“The issue of airport safety is clearly critical, and we do not for a moment suggest that the commissioners acted with anything other than the best interests of public safety in mind,” Cooley wrote. “However, the Brown Act protects the public’s right to participate in those same discussions.”

The commission violated the Brown Act by holding a lengthy debate about a congressional report that cited a “high risk” of close calls between aircraft maneuvering on the ground at the nation’s airports, including Los Angeles International Airport.

The issue of runway safety was not listed on the meeting’s agenda, but airport commission President Alan Rothenberg invited each of the panel’s members to discuss the topic at length. The Brown Act requires government bodies to post agenda topics 72 hours before a regularly scheduled meeting.

“I want to make it clear that there is no proposed action to be taken and therefore it’s not formally on the agenda,” Rothenberg said during the Dec. 17 meeting. “But I think it’s important that every commissioner have the opportunity to say what they want to and ask whatever questions of staff they have so we can cover this issue.”

Each of the commissioners took up the offer and provided suggestions to airport staff on how to immediately heighten safety on the northern airfield at LAX. Several commissioners also said they intended to ask for a speedy environmental study examining how the parallel northern runways should be reconfigured.

Members of a political body are allowed to provide brief remarks on an unscheduled topic, but the airport commission’s discussion on Dec. 17 went beyond the parameters permitted by law, according to Cooley.

“President Rothenberg made clear that no action was going to be taken on the matters of discussion, but that exclusion does not, in our view, change the analysis,” Cooley wrote. “The Brown Act requires a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed.”

Officials with Los Angeles World Airports, the city agency that operates LAX, initially denied any wrongdoing by the airport commission. Officials on Monday changed course and sounded more contrite.

“We are pleased that the District Attorney’s Office recognized that the airport commission’s discussion was the inadvertent result of an attempt to respond to a significant public safety issue,” said Nancy Castles, a LAWA spokeswoman. “We also agree with the District Attorney’s Office that the Board of Airport Commissioners and Los Angeles World Airports are mindful of the public’s right to participate in the decision-making process and are committed to actively pursue matters of public safety concerns.”

To rectify the violation, a discussion of runway safety is expected to appear on the airport commission’s meeting agenda for Monday. At that time, the commissioners will take the unusual step in playing audio footage of the Dec. 17 meeting, according to sources associated with planning the meeting.

About 30 political bodies were reprimanded for Brown Act violations last year, according to Jennifer Lentz Snyder, assistant deputy of the District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division. Lawsuits are filed only under the most dire situations, such as when an agency refuses to comply with the law, she said.

“It’s not an unusual circumstance,” Snyder said. “Once we notify an agency of a violation, we tend to get a 99.9 percent compliance rate through some sort of remediation.”

The commission’s action last month upset several people who closely monitor politics at LAX, including Robert Acherman, vice president of the Alliance for a Regional Solution to Airport Congestion.

“The commission obviously knew what they were doing when they violated the Brown Act,” said Acherman, who declined to say whether anyone from his anti-airport expansion group filed the complaint against the airport commission.

“The D.A.’s decision just shows that the public is watching what the airport commission is doing,” he said. “No one is going to tolerate a railroad job on efforts to expand LAX.”

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.